Cover not available

Article published In: Diachronica
Vol. 36:4 (2019) ► pp.583–611

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

The role of frequency of use in lexical change

Evidence from Latin and Greek

 | University of Toronto
 | Simon Fraser University
 | Simon Fraser University
Published online: 18 December 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.00017.wil
Abstract
Based on the number of words per meaning across the Indo-European Swadesh list, Pagel, Mark, Quentin D. Atkinson & Andrew Meade. 2007. Frequency of word-use predicts rates of lexical evolution throughout Indo-European history. Nature 4491. 717–221. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar suggest that frequency of use is a general mechanism of linguistic evolution. We test this claim using within-language change. From the IDS (Key, Mary Ritchie & Bernard Comrie. 2015. Intercontinental Dictionary Series. [URL]) we compiled a comparative word list of 1,147 cognate pairs for Classical Latin and Modern Spanish, and 1,231 cognate pairs for Classical and Modern Greek. We scored the amount of change for each cognate pair in the two language histories according to a novel 6-point scale reflecting increasing levels of change from regular sound change to external borrowing. We find a weak negative correlation between frequency of use and lexical change for both the Latin-Spanish and Classical-Modern Greek language developments, but post hoc tests reveal that low frequency of use of borrowed words drive these patterns, casting some doubt on frequency of use as a general mechanism of language change.
Résumé
D’après le nombre de mots par sens dans la liste Swadesh, Pagel, Mark, Quentin D. Atkinson & Andrew Meade. 2007. Frequency of word-use predicts rates of lexical evolution throughout Indo-European history. Nature 4491. 717–221. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar propose que la fréquence d’utilisation des mots est un mécanisme général d’évolution linguistique. Nous avons procédé à un test de cette hypothèse en examinant les changements linguistiques dans une langue. En utilisant l’IDS (Key, Mary Ritchie & Bernard Comrie. 2015. Intercontinental Dictionary Series. [URL]), nous avons comparé 1 147 mots en latin classique avec leurs mots apparentés en espagnol et 1 231 mots en grec classique avec leurs mots apparentés en grec moderne. Nous avons créé une nouvelle échelle de changement qui monte en 6 rangs entre « changement régulier » jusqu’à « emprunt étranger ». Nous avons découvert une corrélation négative et faible entre la fréquence d’utilisation des mots et leur changement entre langues (Du latin à l’espagnol et du grec classique au grec moderne), mais elles dependent en grande partie des mots d’emprunt, rendant douteuse l’hypothese examinee.
Zusammenfassung
Basierend auf der Anzahl der Wörter pro Bedeutung in der Indoeuropäischen Swadesh-Liste schließen Pagel, Mark, Quentin D. Atkinson & Andrew Meade. 2007. Frequency of word-use predicts rates of lexical evolution throughout Indo-European history. Nature 4491. 717–221. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, dass Gebrauchsfrequenz (GF) ein genereller Mechanismus linguistischer Evolution sei. Diese Behauptung haben wir durch innersprachlichen Wandel getestet und dabei aus der IDS (Key, Mary Ritchie & Bernard Comrie. 2015. Intercontinental Dictionary Series. [URL]) eine Vergleichsliste von 1147 Kognatenpaaren für klassisches Latein und Neuspanisch und 1231 Kognatenpaare für Alt- und Neugriechisch zusammengestellt. Der Grad des Wandels für jedes Kognatenpaar in den beiden Sprachgeschichten wurde durch eine neuartige 6-Punkte-Likert-Skala bewertet, die den steigenden Niveaus des Sprachwandels von regelmäßigem Lautwandel bis hin zu Entlehnungen entspricht. Wir stellen sowohl für die Sprachentwicklung von Latein zu Spanisch als auch für die von Alt- zu Neugriechisch eine schwache, negative Korrelation zwischen GF und lexikalischem Wandel fest. Allerdings zeigen Post hoc-Tests, dass Lehnwörter mit einer niedrigen GF diese Muster anführen, was an GF als generellem Mechanismus für Sprachwandel zweifeln lässt.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
  • 3.Methods
    • 3.1Stability of FoU
    • 3.2Operationalizing amount of change
  • 4.Results
  • 5.Discussion and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (74)
References
Alonso, Maria Angeles, Angel Fernandez & Emiliano Diez. 2011. Oral frequency norms for 67,979 Spanish words. Behavior Research 431. 449–458. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Altmann, Eduardo G., Zakary L. Whichard & Adilson E. Motter. 2013. Identifying trends in word frequency dynamics. Journal of Statistical Physics 151(1). 277–288. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Atkinson, Quentin D. & Russell D. Gray. 2005. Curious parallels and curious connections-phylogenetic thinking in biology and historical linguistics. Systematic Biology 54(4). 513–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006a. Are accurate dates an intractable problem for historical linguistics? In Carl P. Lipo, Michael J. O’Brien, Mark Collard & Stephen J. Shennan (eds.), Mapping our ancestors: Phylogenetic methods in anthropology and prehistory, 269–296. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006b. How old is the Indo-European language family? Illumination or more moths to the flame? In Peter Forster & Colin Renfrew (eds.), Phylogenetic methods and the prehistory of languages, 91–109. Cambridge, UK: The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Atkinson, Quentin D., Andrew M. Meade, Chris Venditti, Simon J. Greenhill & Mark Pagel. 2008. Languages evolve in punctuational bursts. Science 319(5863). 588.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Atkinson, Quentin D., Geoff Nicholls, David Welch & Russell D. Gray. 2005. From words to dates: Water into wine, mathemagic or phylogenetic inference? Transactions of the Philological Society 103(2). 93–219. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Babiniotis, George. 1998. Dictionary of Modern Greek [Leksiko tis Neas Elinikis Glosas]. Athens: Kentro Leksikologias.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baxter, Gareth J., Richard A. Blythe, William Croft & Alan J. McKane. 2009. Modeling language change: An evaluation of Trudgill’s theory of the emergence of New Zealand English. Language Variation and Change 21(2). 257–296. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1993. Representativeness in corpus design. Literary and Linguistic Computing 8(4). 243–257. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bowern, Claire & Quentin D. Atkinson. 2012. Computational phylogenetics and the internal structure of Pama-Nyungan. Language 88(4). 817–845. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bowern, Claire, Patience Epps, Russell Gray, Jane Hill, Keith Hunley, Patrick McConvell & Jason Zentz. 2011. Does lateral transmission obscure inheritance in hunter-gatherer languages? PLOS ONE 6(9). 1–9. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boyd-Bowman, Peter. 1954. From Latin to Romance in sound charts. Kalamazoo: Kalamazoo College Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bush, Nathan. 2001. Frequency effects and word-boundary palatalization in English. In J. Bybee & P. Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 255–280. Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2002. Word frequency and context of use in the lexical diffusion of phonetically conditioned sound change. Language Variation and Change 141. 261–290. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82(4). 711–733. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Joanne Scheibman. 1999. The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don’t in English. Linguistics 27(4). 575–596.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Sandra Thompson. 1997. Three frequency effects in syntax. In Proceedings of the twenty-third annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General session and parasession on pragmatics and grammatical structure, 378–388. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2011. Markedness: Iconicity, economy, and frequency. In Jae Jung Song (ed.), The handbook of linguistic typology, 131–147. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2017. Grammatical and lexical factors in sound change: A usage-based approach. Language Variation and Change 291. 273–300. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Calude, Andreea S. & Mark Pagel. 2011. How do we use language? Shared patterns in the frequency of word use across 17 world languages. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 366(1567). 1101–1107. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. 2004. Historical linguistics: An introduction, 2nd edn. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crane, Gregory R. 1987–2016. Perseus digital library. [URL]
Croft, William. 2000. Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Harlow: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. Evolutionary linguistics. Annual Review of Anthropology 371. 219–234. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davies, Mark E. 2002. Corpus del Español: 100 million words, 1200s-1900s. [URL]
Dunn, Michael, Stephen C. Levinson, Eva Lindström, Ger Reesink & Angela Terrill. 2008. Structural phylogeny in historical linguistics: Methodological explorations applied in Island Melanesia. Language 84(4). 710–759. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dyen, Isidore, Joseph B. Kruskal & Paul Black. 1992. An Indoeuropean classification: A lexicostatistical experiment. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 82(5). 1–132. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fitch, W. Tecumseh. 2008. Co-evolution of phylogeny and glossogeny: There is no ‘logical problem of language evolution’. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31(5). 521–522. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fosler-Lussier, Eric & Nelson Morgan. 1999. Effects of speaking rate and word frequency on pronunciation in conversational speech. Speech Communication 291. 137–158. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gómez de Silva, Guido. 1985. Elsevier’s concise Spanish etymological dictionary. Amsterdam u.a: Elsevier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gray, Russell D. & Quentin D. Atkinson. 2003. Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin. Nature 4261. 435–9. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gregory, Morgan L., W. D. Raymond, Alan Bell, Eric Fosler-Lussier & Daniel Jurafsky. 1999. The effects of collocational strength and contextual predictability in lexical production. In Proceedings of the 35th meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 151–166. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hare, Mary & Jeffrey L. Elman. 1995. Learning and morphological change. Cognition 56(1). 61–98. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin & Uri Tadmor. 2009. The loanword typology project and the world loanword database. In Martin Haspelmath & Uri Tadmor (eds.), Loanwords in the world’s languages: A comparative handbook, 1–34. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer. 2001. Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative? Linguistics 39(6). 1041. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer & Paul Foulkes. 2016. The evolution of medial /t/ over real and remembered time. Language 92(2). 298–330. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan. 1976. Word frequency in lexical diffusion and the source of morphophonological change. In William M. Christie Jr. (ed.), Current progress in historical linguistics, Amsterdam, NL: North Holland.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Horrocks, Geoffrey C. 2010. Greek: A history of the language and its speakers, 2nd edn. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
ILSP. 1999–2009. Hellenic national corpus (HNC). Institute for Language and Speech Processing, Web Version 3.0, [URL], (accessed March 4 2015).
Kaiser, Mark & Vitaly Shevoroshkin. 1988. Nostratic. Annual Review of Anthropology 171. 309–329. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keller, Daniela Barbara & Jörg Schultz. 2013. Connectivity, not frequency, determines the fate of a morpheme. PLoS ONE 8(7). 1–8. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Key, Mary Ritchie & Bernard Comrie. 2015. Intercontinental Dictionary Series. [URL]
Krug, Manfred G. 1998. String frequency: A cognitive motivating factor in coalescence, language processing, and linguistic change. Journal of English Linguistics 261. 286–320. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Paul Rayson & Wilson Andrew. 2001. Word frequencies in written and spoken english: Based on the British National Corpus. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lieberman, Erez, Jean-Baptiste Michel, Joe Jackson, Tina Tang & Martin A. Nowak. 2007. Quantifying the evolutionary dynamics of language. Nature 449(7163). 713–71. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McMahon, April, Paul Heggarty, Robert McMahon & Natalia Slaska. 2005. Swadesh sublists and the benefits of borrowing: An Andean case study. Transactions of the Philological Society 103(2). 147–170. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McMahon, April & Robert McMahon. 2003. Finding families: Quantitative methods in language classification. Transactions of the Philological Society 101(1). 7–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McMahon, April. & Robert McMahon. 2005. Language classification by numbers. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McMahon, April & Robert McMahon. 2008. Genetics, historical linguistics and language variation. Language and Linguistics Compass 2(2). 264–288.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mendeloff, Henry. 1969. A manual of comparative Romance linguistics: Phonology and morphology. Washington: Catholic University of America Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nakhleh, Luay, Don Ringe & Tandy Warnow. 2005. Perfect phylogenetic networks: A new methodology for reconstructing the evolutionary history of natural languages. Language 81(2). 382–420. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nelson-Sathi, Shijulal, Johann-Mattis List, Hans Geisler, Heiner Fangerau, Russell D. Gray, William Martin & Tal Dagan. 2011. Networks uncover hidden lexical borrowing in Indo-European language evolution. Proceedings: Biological Sciences 278(1713). 1794–1803.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nettle, Daniel. 2007. Review of Ritt, Nikolaus. 2004. Selfish sounds and linguistic evolution: A Darwinian approach to language change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Journal of Linguistics 43(2). 482–486.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
NIST. 1992. Switchboard corpus: Recorded telephone conversations. National Institute of Standards and Technology Speech Disc 9–11 to 9–25.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pagel, Mark, Quentin D. Atkinson & Andrew Meade. 2007. Frequency of word-use predicts rates of lexical evolution throughout Indo-European history. Nature 4491. 717–221. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pagel, Mark, Quentin D. Atkinson, Andreea S. Calude & Andrew Meade. 2013. Ultraconserved words point to deep language ancestry across Eurasia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110(21). 8471–8476. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pappas, Panayiotis A. & Arne O. Mooers. 2011. Phylogenetic methods in historical linguistics: Greek as a case study. Journal of Greek Linguistics 11(2). 198–220. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Phillips, Betty S. 1984. Word frequency and the actuation of sound change. Language 60(2). 320–342. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1994. Southern English glide deletion. American Speech 69(2). 115–127. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2001. Lexical diffusion, lexical frequency, and lexical analysis. In Joan Bybee & Paul J. Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 123–136. Amsterdam, NL: John Bejamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2006. Word frequency and lexical diffusion. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pluymaekers, Mark, Mirjam Ernestus & R. Harald Baayen. 2005. Lexical frequency and acoustic reduction in spoken Dutch. Acoustical Society of America 2561–2569. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Polinsky, Maria & Ezra Van Everbroeck. 2003. Development of gender classifications: Modeling the historical change from Latin to French. Language 79(2). 356–390. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Renfrew, Colin & David Nettle (eds.). 1999. Nostratic: Examining a linguistic macrofamily. Cambridge, UK: The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ringe, Don, Tandy Warnow & Ann Taylor. 2002. Indo-European and computational cladistics. Transactions of the Philological Society 1001. 59–129. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schuchardt, Hugo. 1972[1885]. On sound laws: Against the Neogrammarians. In Theo Vennemann & Terence H. Wilbur (eds.), Schuchardt, the Neogrammarians, and the transformational theory of phonological change, 39–72. Frankfurt: Athenaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sharoff, Serge. 2005. Methods and tools for development of the Russian Reference Corpus. In Andrew Wilson, Dawn Archer & Paul Rayson (eds.), Corpus linguistics around the world, 167–180. Amsterdam, NL: Rodopi.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swadesh, Morris. 1952. Lexico-statistic dating of prehistoric ethnic contacts: With special reference to North American Indians and Eskimos. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 96(4). 452–463.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tiersma, Peter M. 1982. Local and general markedness. Language 58(4). 832–849. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wang, William S.-Y. (ed). 1977. The lexicon in phonological change. The Hague, NL: Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Woods, M. J. 2001. Spanish word frequency: A historical surprise. Computers and the Humanities 35(2). 231–236. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zipf, George K. 1929. Relative frequency as a determinant of phonetic change. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 401. 1–95. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Wichmann, Søren, Eric W. Holman & José A. Hinojosa
2023. Cross-linguistic conditions on word length. PLOS ONE 18:1 ► pp. e0281041 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue